Can someone explain to me how Caroline Kennedy is more qualifed for NY Senate

[Muttocracy]

than these Democratic leaders (and the list could be longer)

Congressman Maurice Hinchey

16 years in House (crazy shaped district including Poughkeepsie, Binghamton, and Ithaca)
18 years in NYS Assembly prior to that

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/about/


Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez

16 years in House (parts of Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan)
Chairwoman of the House Small Business Committee

http://www.house.gov/velazquez/about/bio.html


Congresswoman Nita Lowey

20 years in House (Rockland, Westchester)
Chairwoman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations Committee

http://lowey.house.gov/?sectionid=2§iontree=2


Congresswoman Louise Slaughter

22 years in House (Rochester, Niagara Falls, Buffalo)
microbiologist, MPH

http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=84

[movonne]

1. How much experience did Hillary have???

[aquart]

6. Hillary was elected, not appointed.

[Captain Hilts]

34. And Moynihan was enthusiastic about her candidacy for his seat. nt

[Raineyb]

58. Hillary was bulldozed in.

They pushed aside a long time Democrat who had wanted to run for the seat in order to hand it over to Mrs. Clinton.

The Republican opposition was so weak there was really not much of a contest.

Regards

[Captain Hilts]

81. First, RudyG was running on the R side - a strong candidate, second...

Lowrey would not likely have beaten him. My firm was doing polling in NYS at the time.

Moynihan was enthusiastic about HRC getting his seat.

[Raineyb]

90. With all due respect to the late Moynihan it wasn't his seat to give.

It was up to the people of New York to choose. And the Democratic voters were denied the ability to get a really good primary because the machine had basically declared Clinton the nominee. In addition, Giuliani dropped out and the Republicans had Rick Lazio run. Lazio wasn't as strong as Giuliani and it's not entirely certain that Giuliani could win.

Regards

[Captain Hilts]

101. RudyG was polling behind Clinton,which is why he dropped out. nt

[Raineyb]

109. I doubt that Giuliani would have won either way

But your belief that Lowey couldn't win notwithstanding it doesn't change the fact that one of our politicians was pushed aside so the former First Lady can run in her place. A former First Lady who had never lived in the state until she decided to run for one of our offices. Hence the phrase bulldozing.

Regards

[karynnj]

144. Not pre 911 - He was hated in nyc

Not to mention he told the media he was divorcing his wife BEFORE he told her. The NYC tabloids had a headline a day on his affair for months. He did not drop out because of postrate cancer, he dropped out because he couldn't win.

From the moment she was the candidate she started out a bit ahead - and he sunk. Partially her campaigning, but also his issues.

[Muttocracy]

7. Representing New Yorkers? Zilch. We were just a stepping stone. nt

[Raineyb]

91. Indeed.

It's strange how infrequently that little fact is mentioned.

Regards

[Muttocracy]

93. and now that she's gone to Sec of State it's even clearer.

I respected her work getting to know the colleges and agriculture in upstate NY. But now, what was the point?

[Raineyb]

100. It would appear to be the means to an end

Which was yet another reason why I wasn't crazy about her run for President. It feels like being Senator was merely a stepping stone for bigger and better things. Not that she's the first or only person to run for or be appointed to a bigger position from the Senate but usually people who run for Senate had served the state in some way. The party basically bulldozed the way clear for Clinton to run after leaving the White House and now we've got to find a replacement again. At least this time we'll get a New Yorker. But to be honest I'd prefer if we'd put someone in there who wants to be there. I'm tired of placeholders. We've already had one.

Regards

[Retrograde]

140. but she seemed to do a competent job while she was there

My family are all in western New York, and I keep up with what's happening there. Hillary did spend a lot of time with her upstate constituents, a lot more than Schumer or her predecessors. It may have been a stepping stone, but she took the job seriously when she was doing it. And she did actively campaign for the job in all parts of the state.

My earliest political "activism" was protesting against Robert Kennedy running for NY senator. Since I was 10 at the time, no one paid me any attention. While Caroline Kennedy is, I am sure, a well-educated intelligent woman who supports our favorite causes I see nothing about her that makes her special - apart from her name. The Democratic party has a lot of well-educated, intelligent women who've gotten where they were by going out and winning an election.

[saracat]

38. Hillary had been integral to many campaigns since law school. She was a political animal.

She also had spent the previous 8 years dealing with congress on many issues. She wasn't complately devoid of DC experience.

[Captain Hilts]

39. Hell, she worked for McGovern in Texas. She deserves a reward for that!

[saracat]

41. And she was also on the Nixon impeachment staff.

[Captain Hilts]

48. Can you imagine trying to sell McGovern ... to Texans????

[Raineyb]

104. Only NY experience. n/t

Regards

[karynnj]

145. "integral" ??? Other than Bill's - I don't think so Though she was involved in campaigns

But, Caroline Kennedy has been involved in Kennedy campaigns all her life. She also volunteered for Kerry in 1972, when she was 15 - an age when HRC was for Goldwater. She also happens to be a real long time resident of NY.

Carolyn has done rellies for other Democrats - the one with Kerry in 2004 was great.

The other thing is that is is not a contest between Caroline and Hillary. The fact is you likely resent that she endorsed Obama.

[Freddie Stubbs]

106. Enough to get elected without being appointed by anyone

[Raineyb]

111. Have you any idea how it came to be that Clinton ran for Senate in NY in the first place

and who was basically pushed aside in order to facilitate it?

Regards

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. I remember very clearly

After she made her intention known that she was interested in the Senate seat, she began traveling around the state listening to the concerns of voters. After this, she won the Democratic Primary with over 81% of the vote. She then went on to win the general election with over 55% of the vote.

[Raineyb]

133. You forgot the part where Nita Lowey had intended to run for the seat

and stepped aside. Do you really think that would have happened for any old person who didn't even live in the state? I don't think so. Senator Clinton did do the work to win the general election but lets not pretend like the way wasn't paved for her as far as the primary.

Regards

[Freddie Stubbs]

134. Apperently Lowey was afraid that Democratic primary voters would pick Hillary over her

[Raineyb]

135. Or the party apparatus had a talk with her

Because they didn't want to risk losing the seat if a primary got ugly which it very easily could have. (That kept D'mato in the senate for an extra term.)

Regards

[clear eye]

141. Throughout his tenure as AR Gov and POTUS

Bill Clinton reiterated that the voters were getting "2 for 1" when they elected him because his wife was also extremely qualified and he would be regularly consulting with her. "During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal."--from her Wikipedia article.

She also spoke informally with the people who came to see Bill, went on fact-finding trips with him, and attended numerous dinners of state during which she'd converse, at least occasionally about current affairs, with the most powerful people in the world. "In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act."--also Wikipedia
The Wikipedia citations are all footnoted there, if you have any doubts.

The research Clinton did for the above-mentioned legislation is a completely different type of involvement than sitting on a few boards and occasionally fundraising for a couple of causes or a political campaign by phoning your wealthy friends. Doesn't take difficult research to find how she was in a whole different class when it comes to qualifications than Caroline Kennedy is.

[aquart]

2. Tell me which one could win a Senate primary.

There's your answer.

Is Caroline in the running? Didn't know she lived here.

[mwei924]

3. Maybe they wanna keep the trend going.

Women who are related to Presidents.

[leftstreet]

4. She's American Royalty

You didn't know that?

:hi:

[Muttocracy]

40. I am learning... nt

[clear eye]

142. My email to the Governor (and link)

http://161.11.121.121/govemail

My letter:

Dear Gov. Paterson:

A U.S. Senate seat is too powerful an office to have it to be bought by the fundraising and large donations to the Presidential campaign of an unqualified person . People who do that get ambassadorships. If the time came for a Sen. Caroline Kennedy to pressure Obama for something NY really needed, I wonder if she would either recognize it or feel independent enough to do so.

On the other hand, Rep. Maloney is an experienced, effective, and caring policy "wonk", with a superb record on issues in support of families and the middle class, and a superior grasp of what is needed to improve our sick economy--somewhat in the mold of the current Sen. Clinton. She is also a good fundraiser and an extremely hardworking campaigner who would appeal to previous Clinton voters. Please make the right choice for NY.

[Warpy]

5. I don't know why they go for star quality and a recognizable name

either, except maybe they're thinking about her reelection chances.

At least our stars can talk without making people wish for the days of the butterfly nets.

[Muttocracy]

14. If we can't elect a non-famous Dem here in New York

how on earth do they get elected in less blue states?

:shrug:

[Donnachaidh]

8. Legacies seem to be okay, as long as they are blue

the hypocrisy is stunning. :eyes:

[CTyankee]

61. No, like the ad says, "THIS is New York!"

New York likes to do it big. They love their celebs. They are happy in the limelight. And they love their women politicians!

Come on, this is a big party! Caroline Kennedy is another star in the New York firmament. Plus, she is beautiful and serious and a BIG supporter of Obama!

Let's all celebrate this, if it happens. I am thrilled!

[Muttocracy]

79. "Beautiful" is now a serious reason to appoint someone a Senator? I give up. nt

[CTyankee]

85. Oh, c'mon! Don't be that way. Beautiful has many different attributes including:

soul, mind and body. I think she has all three. What is so terrible about that?

I believe she is a good, serious woman who, if she says she will serve as Senator, will serve in good conscience and in the best memory of her father and uncle. What is wrong with that?

[Muttocracy]

87. so are the Representatives I listed ugly people

in whatever way you want to define ugly?

[CTyankee]

95. I don't think I defined "ugly," did I? n/t

[Muttocracy]

98. well, less beautiful then? nt

[Muttocracy]

88. thank you. nt

[Wabbajack_]

9. Easy, she's not

no more dynasties please.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Divine providence.

[gmudem]

11. I have no problem with it as long as she doesn't run in 2010

If she serves just as a placeholder for a couple years than that is ok with me, it's smart for Paterson to do that so that nobody will have a built-in advantage in the 2010 primaries. However, I don't want to see her run for re-election and I'd like New York to have an actual New Yorker in the Senate.

[Muttocracy]

12. I think she is an actual NYer

living in NYC? I know she worked on education issues with NYC public schools.

So I guess having an actual NYer interested in NY for the long haul would be a step up.

[goclark]

55. How long was Hillary an "actual New Yorker?"

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

59. You mean before she ran for Senate?

Presumably meaning how long did she live in New York? Well, I'll just put it this way. She had more PA cred than she did NY cred.

:shrug:

Regards

[goclark]

64. And Caroline has been a part of the New York Life

for many,many years ~ correct?

:shrug:

[Muttocracy]

69. didn't she work for the NYC public schools for a long time? nt

[Captain Hilts]

82. Bloomie got her to volunteer as a fund raiser for NYC public schools. nt

[Raineyb]

86. Correct.

She does live here which would be one mark for her that HRC didn't have if we're going to put someone into the seat ahead of any of the elected officials who may have their eye on it. Again.

Regards

Edited to add one word for context.

[Muttocracy]

89. Progress!

:woohoo:


:sarcasm:

[Raineyb]

92. I forgot to add again. I fixed that.

Regards

[Muttocracy]

70. the phrase was not mine; replying to that post. nt

[maryf]

57. Native born New Yorker

attended Columbia Law School in NYC, worked at the Metropolitan Museum of art starting in 1980, and has lived in the city ever since, married a New Yorker...most of her life in NY...

[Midlodemocrat]

72. She lives in NYC and Sagaponack. Has since the kids were born.

[petronius]

25. But wouldn't be better to put someone in now who will run in 2010 - that person

would gain an advantage in the general election, right? It seems that evening the playing field for the primary also evens the field aganst the R candidate later - it seems smarter for the Ds to get behind someone now and have a better chance of winning in 2010...

(Unless, of course, the R oppposition for 2010 is trivial.)

[DJ13]

13. If NY wants influence in Congress, selecting nobodies wont do it

She has a law degree, she's not the know nothing you seem to think she is.

[Muttocracy]

16. Didn't say she was a know-nothing. So all those other reps are nobodies?

Caroline would, like Hillary, have no seniority when elected. Having legislative experience does help with seniority in the Senate.

[DJ13]

27. Caroline would, like Hillary, have no seniority when elected.

Uh, neither would any of the people you named off.

Which person would have a better chance at getting a piece of legislation through as a newcomer to the Senate, any of those you named or a Kennedy?

[Muttocracy]

33. So legislation would magically pass because of her last name?

And you think decades of experience passing legislation and cultivating a staff and relationships with others in both houses is irrelevant? Clearly we just see this completely differently.


And freshman with prior service in the house get higher seniority compared to other freshmen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_seniority

[Captain Hilts]

36. People will always return her calls. nt

[leftchick]

15. what about liddy dole?

she basically sucked tax payer dollars for years to be inept.

[Muttocracy]

18. Maybe Laura Bush will change her mind about Dallas and move here? nt

[walkaway]

17. Some guy on Hardball just compared her unfavorably to...

...Sarah Palin in experience and intelligence.

[Muttocracy]

19. No, that's insanely untrue. nt

[walkaway]

24. Honest...I just saw it

his name is Michael Semrcornish (sp?)

[Captain Hilts]

37. Christ on a bike, why WHY do people compare Palin to Clinton and Kennedy?!?!?!?!

They've all got falopian tubes. Fine. What's that got to do with being in the senate????

[saracat]

43. Cripes, someone who was top of her law school class compared to Palin? On what grounds?

Or is Palin part of a dynasty we haven't heard of?

[Captain Hilts]

50. Exactly. And CKS is seen as the smartest of that generation of Ks.

Palin gets in a battle of wits with HRC or CKS, she's going to have her hat handed to her.

[Raineyb]

60. Palin couldn't win a battle of wits with my 3-year-old niece.

But I get what you're saying.

Regards

[Captain Hilts]

65. Well, your niece, HRC and CKS wouldn't get in a battle of wits with an unarmed woman. nt

[Raineyb]

75. That is quite true. LOL

:P

Regards

[walkaway]

74. and cuter

[mitchum]

63. Caroline's pony Macaroni was smarter than Sarah Palin!

[Captain Hilts]

78. I don't know why I know 'Macaroni', hell, I took sides in the Julie vs. Tricia fight.

Sided with Julie but bet on Tricia.

[goclark]

125. Macaroni was way smarter than Palin ~

:bounce:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

132. I have a very yellowed scrapbook with newspaper cut outs of Caroline

and Macaroni!

[Lex]

20. The person with the longest resume is not always the best person for the job.

Best qualified for a position also doesn't always mean "I've done a similar job a long time."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Great.

Then explain why Kennedy would be better than all of these people with decades of experience, some of whom are minorities.

[Muttocracy]

44. thank you for understanding my original question.

I think Caroline is a great person and has done terrific work in her life. Has Obama named his Education Secretary yet? That would make sense to me.

[Lex]

45. I didn't say she would be better or worse, just that a long resume

doesn't always mean that is the right person for the job, which was the OP's premise.

[Muttocracy]

49. My premise is not based on counting years alone, but their records. nt

[Lex]

53. A long resume would be including their "records." nt

[Muttocracy]

54. Caroline has a record/resume/whatever you want to call it also

So compare that in terms of being NY's Senator.

[Muttocracy]

23. So the folks I listed would not make good Senators? nt

[Lex]

42. Your premise that "they've done it longer so they would be better" is faulty.

That is not always the case, which is the presumption you make.

[Muttocracy]

46. it's not just about the years - read the links and answer it based on other criteria then. nt

[Lex]

52. You misunderstand.

She may not be the most qualified. She may not be the best choice. I not arguing either way. My point is that the mere fact that other accomplished people are out there doesn't unequivocally mean she'd be a bad pick either.

[Romulox]

21. Good genes. nt

[madmom]

26. How was sonny bono's wife qualified, how was arnold qualified, that doesn't seem to be important.

[liberalpragmatist]

28. Lowey withdrew her name from consideration...

... FWIW. She chairs an appropriations subcommittee in the House and is in her 70s, so she has opted to remain where she is.

[Muttocracy]

29. thanks, hadn't heard that. nt

[paulk]

30. she's not, obviously

I'd be happy with Hinchey or Slaughter from your list.

Give it to someone from upstate.

[amdezurik]

31. is she a citizen and over 25 (might be 30, can't recall)?

then she is as qualified as she NEEDS to be and as qualified as most senators the first time they take the office.

[Muttocracy]

51. 30; about half of U.S. Senators were governors or Reps before they took office. nt

[Captain Hilts]

32. She isn't. But that's not why she might be chosen. She's being chosen so as not to give any one...

qualified candidate an advantage in 2010.

[Lex]

47. Right, a lot more goes into making the decision than "who's done it longer"

up to this point.

[Raineyb]

62. Right, because after all this NY deserves nothing more than a mere placeholder

:thumbsdown:

I'd like to see a New Yorker who's interested in serving the people of New York. I've had it with this place holding bullshit. I don't give a damn about the potential advantage for 2010 at this point. Put someone in now and if they run again in 2010, let them hold on to their seniority for all I care but put someone in who's not planning to leave right away or someone who's only using the position as a stepping stone for bigger and better things. We deserve at least that much.

Regards

[Captain Hilts]

66. They deserve a fair primary in which no one has the advantage of appointed incumbency. nt

[Muttocracy]

77. Why wouldn't Caroline run for a full term in 2 years? nt

[Raineyb]

84. It would be hard for the leaders of the party to make that argument

Since they basically cleared the way for HRC to run for Senate in the first place. Actually, it wouldn't be hard for them to make the argument but it will be hard for those of us who doesn't forget things from election to election to not laugh at them for thinking our memories so short that we don't remember how they operate. There is still quite the machine in NY. Leaving a placeholder in for a "fair" primary doesn't change that. The machine will still have their chosen candidate in the primary and the odds are that candidate will win.

Regards

[CTyankee]

97. What makes you think she wouldn't take the job willing to work hard for NY?

Just because she is JFK's daughter doesn't mean that she wouldn't be serious if she told Paterson she was interested in the job! You are selling her short. She is a serious person, not some lightweight Bush twin...

[Muttocracy]

99. the comparison is not to Bush's kids - it's to elected Democrats

and in New York, yes, we do have a reason to think that celebrity candidates aren't interested in the needs of New York in the long term.

[Raineyb]

102. I didn't say that. However the word is she doesn't want the job after the 2 years

So in essence she'd be a placeholder if that were the case. I think we deserve more than that. It's no slam on her abilities at all.

Regards

[CTyankee]

122. She may just want to serve her country and her state as a public servant

without committing to spending the rest of her life in politics, doing all that fundraising and political infighting. She may just want to deliver Obama's promise to the country and may feel this is her contribution. It's not a bad idea. In fact, it is kind of the ideal of the founders of the republic, isn't it? Cincinnatus leaving his plow to fight for the republic of Rome and then returning to his plow...

[Raineyb]

127. Then I'd suggest she find another way other than being appointed to the Senate out of the blue.

New York is not short of good progressive Democrats who can fill that seat. This need to get big name "celebrity" candidates hasn't served the people of NY very well of late. We can find someone else. I'm sure Caroline Kennedy would be perfectly capable but we need more than a place holder. We've essentially had one for the past 8 years.

Regards

[CTyankee]

139. I am not totally unsympathetic to your view. In fact, I think it is the strongest argument

AGAINST Caroline Kennedy taking the appointment. So I do get it, believe me. I lived New York for 15 years, first in Manhattan for 5 years then Westchester county for 10, during interesting times. I have some good memories as my 3 children were born there (in NYC). And you are perfectly reasonable for wanting someone to do the heavy lifting for the state. I will bet you that Kennedy is probably thinking the same thing, since she too is a New York resident.

[clear eye]

154. The strongest argument against her appointment is

that there's no indication she knows anything about the issues in the kind of depth a Senator of a large state like NY needs to in order to do her job. Sitting on a few boards (which the wikipedia author of her article deceptively refers to as "is a director of"), occasionally fundraising for a few causes by phoning wealthy friends, and being an early Obama supporter, doesn't mean she'd have the slightest idea how proposed legislation would impact NYS or the country. If she shown any interest in the intracacies of policy by holding a real working position, that required her to know details, with an issue-oriented NGO, most of us now opposed would feel differently. Furthermore, owing her appointment entirely to Obama's recommendation, and having no depth of knowledge herself, there is a real danger that for at least the first couple of years she would behave as an Obama rubber stamp. Conceivably, this might result in costly errors for NYers.

People claim that Hillary Clinton was similarly inexperienced, but that is simply untrue. Bill Clinton frequently reiterated that the voters were getting "2 for 1" when they elected him both as Governor and as President because his wife was also extremely qualified and he would be regularly consulting with her. "During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal."--from her Wikipedia article.

She also spoke informally with the people who came to see Bill, went on fact-finding trips with him, and attended numerous dinners of state during which she'd converse, at least occasionally about current affairs, with the most powerful people in the world. "In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act."--also Wikipedia
The Wikipedia citations are all footnoted there, if there are any doubters.

The research Clinton did for the above-mentioned legislation is a completely different type of involvement than Kennedy's has been. The main objections have nothing to do with paying dues to the NYS political establishment. Large donor/fundraisers with backgrounds like Caroline Kennedy's are normally thanked with ambassadorships.

[saracat]

35. I kind of don't get this either. Caroline is an accomplished person

a lawyer, philanthropist, and writer but she has not been in the politcal arena. She seems to have spent most of her recent history raising her family.This smacks of nepotism big time but heck, most "appointed" positions are. I still don't get why RFK Jr. thinks he is more effective where he is when he wanted it at one time and why he is promoting Caroline.

[RFKJrNews]

117. Yes, it is puzzling

because I think Bobby Jr. has dreamed of holding his father's old senate seat since he was a kid. He has so often expressed a desire to serve as U.S. Senator from NYS, so this sudden reversal is a head-scratcher.

My guess is that Teddy had some role to play in this maneuver...since Caroline was so helpful in this campaign, campaigning side-by-side with Teddy for Obama, and then picking up the torch when Ted became too ill to continue on the campaign trail. She is certainly due a big payback for her efforts, so it makes sense in that regard.

What doesn't make sense to me is that RFK Jr. staunchly supported Hillary in the primaries this year and would have been the natural choice to replace her in the Senate (being the namesake son of RFK doesn't hurt, either), more so than Caroline.

But we need to keep at least one Kennedy in the Senate. With Ted's time being limited now, time for someone else to get in. Caroline works for me!

[frazzled]

56. Long-term as Congressperson does not always equal qualifications for Senator (see D. Davis)

I about fainted when I read that (long-term) Rep. Danny Davis might be selected to replace Obama in the Senate from Illinois. Puh-leeze. (Not the brightest bulb on the tree: if you recall, he was the guy who put the crown on the head of Rev. Sun Myung Moon ... in a government building!) Hey, he votes with the caucus all the time, so it's kind of do-no-harm in the House. But the Senate takes some more independent thinking.

Remember, too: congress-critters get elected in their districts, relatively small areas that may have very specific needs and/or demographics. They might not be able to win statewide.

[Muttocracy]

71. how about for the particular people I mentioned?

Are Hinchey and Slaughter's districts small areas with unusual needs? Has Caroline worked in NY other than in NYC? She might have and I just don't know about it.

As for independent thinking, Hinchey is pretty darn independent in his thinking.

[jillan]

67. Probably more qualified than Kaufmann in DE.

;)

I don't know how these people get picked.

[Muttocracy]

73. I think Kaufmann is a good pick for DE - he'll basically continue Biden's work

as closely as anyone would, same staff, etc., and I'm willing to believe he has no political ambition. People there re-elected Biden so it's reasonable to assume they would want votes and constituent work the way Biden would have handled it.

Kaufmann has worked as a Senate staffer for decades.

I can't believe that Caroline would go in as a placeholder and not run in 2 years.

[jillan]

94. I'm just teasing. But I do find it interesting how all of the sudden

she has become interested in getting involved in politics.

[DailyGrind51]

68. She just IS, damn it! You gotta problem with it?

:sarcasm:

[Muttocracy]

83. I guess I do!

And I haven't gotten a single answer other than her being beautiful and famous as to why should would make a better Senator than 3 of the Reps I listed. (One poster mentioned Lowey isn't interested).

I have no idea if the other 3 are even interested, but as long as we're speculating...

[DailyGrind51]

123. "beautiful and famous" in America, that's all one needs for success!

:sarcasm:

[Midlodemocrat]

76. She'd be great. She's incredibly bright.

I'm for it.

[Muttocracy]

80. Are the other people I listed, and dozens of other elected Dems in NY, NOT bright? nt

[Midlodemocrat]

120. Yes. Caroline's being bright instantly renders all of them dolts.

:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

96. Electability.

[Muttocracy]

103. When did NY turn into a red state? nt

[TexasObserver]

108. Why bother to ask the question if your opinion is the only on that matters to you?

If you wanted to make a statement instead of posing a question, you should have.

People like you shouldn't be allowed to start threads. You don't want opinions. You want to argue.

[Muttocracy]

113. Very few posters are addressing my question except to say she's famous and might raise more money.

So I guess that's what it comes down to, and I have heard those opinions. If she's selected for this, I guess that will be the way to understand it.

[Muttocracy]

114. Maybe you can explain what you meant by electability

Maybe I'm wrong in assuming that NY is more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican for Senate in 2010?

[Raineyb]

105. We have plenty of electable Democrats who can fill that seat.

We're are quite blue.

Regards

[TexasObserver]

110. Because she's Caroline Kennedy and you're not.

that's why

[Raineyb]

112. And it makes her no more electable than any of the people mentioned in the OP

I am not any of those people nor am I running for anything.

Regards

[Stinky The Clown]

107. Since I inspired this thread .......

.... I'd still stand and cheer if she were sent to the Senate.

That statement says NOTHING about or against the fine people you cite in your OP. I'd probably be just fine with them, too.

See ..... here's the thing. It is called an opinion. They're like assholes. Everyone has one.

[frazzled]

115. Okay, so you want some specifics: how about the loaded handgun in Hinchey's luggage?

Those are the kinds of things (when you plead no contest and receive a suspended sentence) that can kind of, um, explode in your face when you're running for the senate. (And I assume you'd want the appointed senator to be able to actually run for election eventually.) Just saying ... because you seem to want to know some disqualifying facts about your candidates. I really could care less who Governor Patterson appoints: Hinchey would probably be fine. And so would Kennedy (or the other Kennedy, or any one of a number of Democrats). But no one is a saint. And no one is really a sinner, either.

Whoever gets appointed from New York will probably be good. I'm more worried about who Howdy-Doody Blagojovich will appoint to be the junior senator from Illinois.

[Muttocracy]

116. That is a real strike against Hinchey. That and he's probably too far left

which is what I thought people might say. I'd forgotten that whole weird gun story.

Though maybe the gun incident wins him votes from a few people who think Dems are anti-gun and wouldn't vote for him otherwise ;)

[Danmel]

118. Paterson may choose Andrew Cuomo

Who is a likely opponent in 2010. Paterson doesn't only have to worry about a potential challenge from Guiliani or some other Republican- lots of Democrats may eye the Governor's Mansion. Appointing Cuomo also gives NY a big name and protects Paterson from the left flank,

There are a few downstate men in the loop too for the job. I just don't like the idea of Ny having a junior Senator with no experience in elective office. It's one thing to be around pols all day (I am I work for an elected)- it is another thing all together to get elected, especially if you are not part of political dynasty and get an automatic pass to the front of the line because of your name-i just think a lot of capable people have paid their dues and that Caroline Kennedy,. who is obviously smart and engageddddd, shouldn't be named Senator if someone else with her resume wouldn't be considered.

[clear eye]

151. Protects the left? We left Dems have long memories

and haven't forgotten the massive corruption in HUD under his leadership. I have nothing but contempt for that man and think that not only shouldn't he be Senator, he should be serving time in jail for all he and his underlings stole from us. The only reason the corruption issue was not raised in the Attorney General campaign was that his opponent, Jeanine Pirro, had corruption issues of her own involving her husband's taxes, so she didn't want to go there. 2006 was a Democratic year in NY, and the issue raised against Pirro was her refusal as a county DA to reopen a case and order examination of DNA evidence of someone jailed for rape before the use of DNA had become standard. Much later, under someone else, the evidence was examined and it proved the man innocent. Her refusal caused the man to remain in jail 16 years longer than if she had done what she should have. The electorate recognized the rank ambition and poor judgement, and her campaign imploded. Cuomo's merits were never fully examined.

[hfojvt]

119. k & R although I dislike your measure of qualification

I don't think politics should be a lifetime profession, and it seems to be so for the people you have listed.

I can see some positives to having lifetime politicians 1) it allows you to keep good people in the position and 2) the longer they do it, the better they get at it.

To me though the huge anti-democratic con sorta relates to your username. "Joe is one of us". That is really only true for a while. After 15, or 20 years in the business, none of those people are 'one of us' any more. No matter how much they may sincerely wish to represent ordinary people, they simply will no longer have the same perspective. And the other drawback, from a democratic standpoint, is that even if they suck, incumbents are very hard to beat. They have the campaign warchests, the connections to fund-raisers, and the name recognition.

[Vinca]

121. I like the notion of "fresh eyes." Caroline is a well read, well educated woman

who has great potential as a Senator. Given Ted's health issues, I like the idea of a new Kennedy face.

[robcon]

124. Caroline Kennedy has no experience, no resume for a Senator.

She just has a name.

Nita Lowey, my representative, is far more qualified. Her voting record is almost perfect, IMO.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

131. Nita Lowey has declined. She has seniority in the House and wants to be exactly

where she is. Lowey is great BTW!

[bottomtheweaver]

137. Apparently she worked as a Senate intern while in college.

From a 1999 Time article:

Her political education came early. During Caroline's summers as a Harvard undergraduate, her uncle Ted insisted that she work in his Senate office as an intern. "He wanted her to understand how the Senate operated and what her father's place was in it," says a longtime Kennedy friend. "He made sure...she would meet the players."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,991654,00.html

Not a lot, but more than others, and at least she interned for a Dem.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

126. The rest would be invisible in Washington compared to Kennedy's impact at the national level.

She would have instant access on the highest level and therefore she could better represent the interests of NY state than all the others put together. It's all a club and she is a legacy member. I ain't saying this is a good thing it's just the way our present government functions.

[zorahopkins]

129. O.M.G.!!! She Is The Daughter Of

You are kidding, right?

Caroline Kennedy is just the daughter of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.

She is also the sister of the late John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Jr.

She is also the neice of Robert F. Kennedy.

She is also the neice of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

She understands paid and suffering.

She *ould make an excellent Senator.

Note: In protest of the continuing occupation of OUR *hite House by the illegal and totally corrupt Bush/Cheney regime of thugs and cronies, I REFUSE to use the letter bet*een "V" and "X", and I urge you to do the same.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

130. Maurice Hinchey is a Progressive unsung hero in the House.

He always votes exactly the way I would want my Rep. John Hall to vote. John has been pretty good, but he did vote for the bailout bill that allowed the looting of our treasury. I wrote to his office and called several times asking him not to vote for it. That the info was being supplied by the same criminals who marched us off to two unnecessary wars.

When John was first running for the House, he and Hinchey paired up. Once John got to the House, Emmanuel got his grubby hands on John. That did assure though that John won his seat again, with ease, but at what price?

[clear eye]

152. YES, a thousand times yes to what you said, BUT

Hinchey is too old to run a hard statewide campaign in 2010, much less go for another term in 2012. The appointee gets to be accepted as the Senator for two years, in effect becoming an incumbent, before running. The Dem leadership understandably wants to give this advantage to someone able to stick around a while. Then there is the matter of needing many large donors. Coming from a relatively poor district, Hinchey hasn't needed them before. So he is not being considered.

Since Nydia Velazquez turned it down, I think Carolyn Maloney is best choice among the people whose names were included in an article posted on the DNC blog. She is extremely knowledgeable and experienced, and has been rated tops by many public interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She's no Hinchey, but is lightyears beyond Kennedy in qualifications, the sum of whose public life has been sitting on a few boards (which wikipedia calls "is a director of"), and occasional fundraising.

To learn more about Carolyn Maloney see my OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4604244 (I've emailed the Governor to recommend her, and I hope others will as well.)

The most worrisome thing about a possible Kennedy appointment is that w/o the normal issues background with which even a freshman Senator normally comes equipped (knowing that the NYC public schools need money doesn't take deep knowledge of issues), she will be weak in understanding the impact that bills or Obama recommendations would have on NYers and the country. There's a fair chance that Kennedy, who is only being considered because Obama is grateful for her early fundraising, and because she agreed to make some phone calls to help him vet his VP options, would not seriously consider problems her constituents might have with aspects of bills the President sends to the Senate. In other words, she may become an Obama rubber stamp.

Some posters have claimed that Hillary Clinton was equally inexperienced when she first ran. Here are some differences:

Bill Clinton frequently reiterated that the voters were getting "2 for 1" when they elected him because his wife was also extremely qualified and he would be regularly consulting with her. "During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal."--from her Wikipedia article.

She also spoke informally with the people who came to see Bill, went on fact-finding trips with him, and attended numerous dinners of state during which she'd converse, at least occasionally about current affairs, with the most powerful people in the world. "In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act."--also Wikipedia
The Wikipedia citations are all footnoted there, if there are any doubters.

The research Clinton did for the above-mentioned legislation is a completely different type of involvement than sitting on a few boards and occasionally fundraising for a couple of causes or a political campaign by phoning your wealthy friends. Large donors with backgrounds like Caroline Kennedy's are normally thanked with ambassadorships.

[apocalypsehow]

136. You make a very good point - I agree with it, so don't start flaming on what I'm going to say next,

pretty please with sugar on top.

I've found progressives & liberals tend to have an unhealthy starry-eyed obsession with anything with the name "Kennedy" attached to it - just like the RW'ers orgasm at the very mention of the name "Reagan." It's a human trait - or weakness, if you prefer - that transcends ideology. Just MHO.



(On the Reagan analogy with conservatives vis-a-vi Kennedy with progressives, wait for it...wait for it...wait for it..."bu-but that's different!!!1)

[Thothmes]

138. For many, the name Kennedy is sufficient in an of itself

to qualify them for anything.

[bigtree]

143. The same argument was likely made about Teddy when he began

[clear eye]

146. These are the only people under consideration

From http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/mikewtulsaplus/Cs8/commentary#comment-gG5HVV">an AP article reposted on the DNC blog.

Whoever Paterson appoints would serve for two years and then have to run in a special election in 2010, along with Paterson and New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer. The candidate would then have to run again in 2012. ...

Caroline Kennedy is easily the most famous contender for Clinton's Senate seat, but there are plenty of others. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is widely known in the state. Paterson could also pick Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown or Tom Suozzi, a Long Island elected official.

There are also a number of House members in the running, including Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Kirsten Gillibrand, Steve Israel, Brian Higgins, Nydia Velazquez and Jerrold Nadler.

Hinchey and Lowey really are too old. Party leaders want a strong campaigner in 2010, and someone who could run again in 2012. It's hard to get statewide name recognition for a candidate, and they don't want to waste the free exposure an appointee will get (in office for two years before going up for election) on someone who can't go for a second term. Velazquez turned it down. Gillibrand creates the problem of leaving a district that is historically Republican, and could easily be again. Nadler and Higgins are men (unaffiliated women turn out more reliably for a woman candidate for high office in a non-Presidential year, and over half the electorate are women), not to mention that Higgins is just not that impressive a mayor.

So out of the batch said to be under consideration, I prefer Rep. Carolyn Maloney, with some reservations. her website

[Dorian Gray]

147. She's not.

That's why politics frustrates me. Name recognition = more than years of service and hard work. It makes me sad for those women who worked their asses off.

[whistler162]

148. How is she less qualified than Daniel Patrick Moynihan

who never served as an elected official until winning the Senate seat from James Buckley in 1976.

[clear eye]

149. Are you kidding? or just intentionally deceptive?

He was a Fulbright Fellow in Economics, who had just finished serving 4 years on the staff of Gov. Harriman of NY. He would know exactly how legislation on the floor of the Senate would impact NYers. She won't have a clue.

[robcon]

150. Kennedy is completely unqualified.

Paterson would be an ass if he named her.

[Book Lover]

153. Can't do it, 'cause she's not!

Don't you just love all these non-New Yorkers telling us how great it would be to have an inexperienced blue blood as our next junior Senator? Why don't we just grab some random guy off the street?

[clear eye]

155. Beautifully put (and very funny).

I was I'd summed it up that succinctly.

Added on edit: Unfortunately some NYers seem to be ga-ga over the idea as well.